The odd intro came about thanks to a redditor, who showed up to a Daily Show taping yesterday with VIP passes. Knowing he would have a chance to ask Stewart a preshow question, the redditor pondered ideas and settled on SOPA, the hugely controversial Stop Online Piracy Act now being considered in Congress. "The Internet sent me to ask you what you think of SOPA and why you haven't mentioned it on the show," he said to Stewart.

Stewart wasn't familiar with SOPA, asking if it was related to net neutrality, but admitted that his team had been consumed with the presidential election race recently. He promised to look into SOPA, and turned to one of his writers when he said it. At the show's open, Stewart then made a reference to SOPA and added, "I have some reading to catch up on."

Jeff Jarvis, pundit and professor, was also in the audience for the taping. He confirmed the preshow story and added, "Confidential to Mr. Stewart: The problem here is that [cough] your industry, entertainment, is trying to give power the power [sic] to blacklist and turn off sites if they’re so much as accused of 'pirating' (their word, not ours) content. This changes the fundamental architecture of the net, giving *government* the power and means to kill sites for this and then other reasons... Please, sir we need your force of virtue to beat down this, another evil. On behalf of The Internet, thank you."

The redditor too is pinning his hopes on Stewart. "I almost lost my mind when he mentioned it in the intro," he noted.

Stewart and Stephen Colbert, whose own show follows The Daily Show, have become unlikely comedians for the geeks. Colbert, for instance, last year picked up our HBGary/Anonymous coverage to do a lengthy segment targeting HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr. "To put this in hacker terms," Colbert said, "Anonymous is a hornet's nest, and Barr said, 'I'm going to stick my penis in that thing.'"

And Colbert has already covered SOPA. Back in December, he had a segment on the bill in which he claimed to be so against the infringement of copyright that he "had the phrase trademarked and emblazoned on a Mickey Mouse doll." He went on to host a brief debate on the subject between band manager Danny Goldberg and Harvard prof Jonathan Zittrain.

Colbert's trademarked phrase, stuck to Mickey Mouse

Comedy Central/Viacom

What are the real views of Colbert and Stewart regarding online piracy? It's hard to say. When I visited Viacom General Counsel Michael Fricklas at Viacom's Time Square headquarters a few years back to talk about the $1 billion lawsuit he had initiated against YouTube, he admitted that the action wasn't backed by all of the creative types working on Viacom's many shows. Still, he hoped they would come around after learning more about the issue. (Fricklas wanted no part of suing end users, saying that it's "expensive, and it's painful, and it feels like bullying." Consumers "need to be treated with respect," he added.)

Colbert's segment on SOPA seems to mock some of the bill's provisions, but in the interview, he goes on to claim that video clips of his show at one point accounted for 25 percent of YouTube's traffic. This may be an exaggeration, but Viacom was in fact furious over just how many clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report appeared on YouTube in its early days. (NBC was similarly furious over SNL's "Lazy Sunday" digital short, which generated more than 7 million streams on YouTube; YouTube has countered that it helped rebuild the show's popularity.)

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Given how well both Stewart and Colbert are doing, in part thanks to rabid support among Internet communities like reddit, it's inconceivable that they would come out in support of SOPA—no matter how many half-muffins corporate parent Viacom passes out to employees. But it would fascinating to know how they really felt in earlier years, when their clips did huge traffic on YouTube and Hulu didn't yet exist. Did at least a part of them feel like they were being ripped off?

It's sort of sad to see that apparently he isn't updated on issues unless they're spoon fed to him by his team.

Yes and no, he is obviously a very well read when it comes to politics but there is a huge election going on. Unless he has a personal interest in tech I doubt he is visiting tech sites; which sadly are the only ones keeping this up in the forefront. Go onto any of the major news sites (as of when I woke up this morning) and you will not see any mention of this bill at all. There is a lot going on in the world, so I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that he needs every issues spoon fed to him.

How accurate is the quoted text from the Google filing? If true, that's pretty damning evidence regarding the entertainment studios' feelings on piracy, which raises the question: Why did Viacom feel the need to lash out against "piracy" while secretly embracing it? I feel like a lot more good could have come out of a major studio publicly embracing this type of "piracy" which brought them major publicity, rather than joining their choir of peers in condemning it. That, in turn, would have made Viacom look good in comparison to the other studios, which is just more incentive for them.

Instead they chose to tow the line while secretly counting their increased viewership? I don't get it.

How accurate is the quoted text from the Google filing? If true, that's pretty damning evidence regarding the entertainment studios' feelings on piracy, which begs the question: Why did Viacom feel the need to lash out against "piracy" while secretly embracing it? I feel like a lot more good could come have out of a major studio publicly embracing this type of "piracy" which brought them major publicity, rather than joining their choir of peers in condemning it. That, in turn, would have made Viacom look good in comparison to the other studios, which is just more incentive for them.

Instead they chose to tow the line while secretly counting their increased viewership? I don't get it.

As I recall, Viacom admitted that clips were being uploaded, but it said that these were a small fraction of the total, and those clips weren't the ones it was suing over. But Google's point was that it could hardly know which clips were real and which weren't.

It's sort of sad to see that apparently he isn't updated on issues unless they're spoon fed to him by his team.

Yes and no, he is obviously a very well read when it comes to politics but there is a huge election going on. Unless he has a personal interest in tech I doubt he is visiting tech sites; which sadly are the only ones keeping this up in the forefront. Go onto any of the major news sites (as of when I woke up this morning) and you will not see any mention of this bill at all. There is a lot going on in the world, so I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that he needs every issues spoon fed to him.

I've actually seen SOPA/PIPA covered quite a bit of late on some "mainstream" media sites, with a mostly neutral stance. True that the washed down explanations of what the bill does/is are maddening, but that is to be expected when it comes to the consumer that most media / news sites cater to.

How accurate is the quoted text from the Google filing? If true, that's pretty damning evidence regarding the entertainment studios' feelings on piracy, which begs the question: Why did Viacom feel the need to lash out against "piracy" while secretly embracing it? I feel like a lot more good could come have out of a major studio publicly embracing this type of "piracy" which brought them major publicity, rather than joining their choir of peers in condemning it. That, in turn, would have made Viacom look good in comparison to the other studios, which is just more incentive for them.

Instead they chose to tow the line while secretly counting their increased viewership? I don't get it.

It's because people on the internet seem to be very black and white. Clips from the show is a great advertising feature for shows like the daily show and colbert report. The episodes do not have a very long shelf-life (very few people are going to go back and watch old episodes from 2005) so it may encourage people to tune in to see what they have to say about future issues. Whereas the reasoning is that no one will ever watch the show live, if whole episodes are uploaded. Or shows that they make a lot of money selling box sets.

It's sort of sad to see that apparently he isn't updated on issues unless they're spoon fed to him by his team.

It's not surprising, he's a mediocre comedian who's managed to get a lot of naive and lazy people to look at him as a serious news source (and in some sad extreme cases, their only news source). He has no problem hiding behind "but I'm just a comedian" whenever it's convenient.

Because copyright law is a big deal and Arts Technica is one of the few media outlets that covers the issue in depth. Ars readers are interested in the topic and might enjoy watching it discussed on the daily show.

It's sort of sad to see that apparently he isn't updated on issues unless they're spoon fed to him by his team.

It's not surprising, he's a mediocre comedian who's managed to get a lot of naive and lazy people to look at him as a serious news source (and in some sad extreme cases, their only news source). He has no problem hiding behind "but I'm just a comedian" whenever it's convenient.

His "I'm a comedian" response is usually to questions about his following and his amount of influence. He's a humble entertainer who happens to be good at reflecting common sense ideas. The things he has to say are by no means mediocre. Both shows are political cartoons, but instead of caricatured drawings they use real footage and real quotes to expose politics for what it is. Stewart and Colbert may be the best things to happen to political discourse in the last 30 years.

It's sort of sad to see that apparently he isn't updated on issues unless they're spoon fed to him by his team.

It's not surprising, he's a mediocre comedian who's managed to get a lot of naive and lazy people to look at him as a serious news source (and in some sad extreme cases, their only news source). He has no problem hiding behind "but I'm just a comedian" whenever it's convenient.

He is just a comedian though... He even did a segment once that showed how well informed viewer are based their primary news source. Of course started with a jab at fox then showed his own show near the bottom. The show only covers maybe 4 stories per night, and with on going events like the election you have a lot of follow up pieces.

Because copyright law is a big deal and Arts Technica is one of the few media outlets that covers the issue in depth. Ars readers are interested in the topic and might enjoy watching it discussed on the daily show.

Also the show has a much larger audience than the couple of tech websites you normally see SOPA on, they are informing us that a larger audience will be learning about SOPA. The more that understand how it works the more likely it will be voted down.

You Tube (Google) is pretty stupid. If I was running Google I'd send a bill to these media companies for advertising their shows and also charge penalty fees for not taking their copy righted material off of you tube. Perhaps 100$ per 1,000 views.

It's sort of sad to see that apparently he isn't updated on issues unless they're spoon fed to him by his team.

It's not surprising, he's a mediocre comedian who's managed to get a lot of naive and lazy people to look at him as a serious news source (and in some sad extreme cases, their only news source). He has no problem hiding behind "but I'm just a comedian" whenever it's convenient.

yes, you don't see any qualities in it so everyone who watches the show must be naive or lazy. makes perfect sense to me...

what's sad about all this is that the daily show's considered by some as a news source simply because they often bring up subjects incomprehensively left out by the mainstream media, and by mentioning it as satire they end up informing people of it. think of it this way: if news outlets did their job properly the daily show would be a lot less relevant nowadays.

It's sort of sad to see that apparently he isn't updated on issues unless they're spoon fed to him by his team.

It's not surprising, he's a mediocre comedian who's managed to get a lot of naive and lazy people to look at him as a serious news source (and in some sad extreme cases, their only news source). He has no problem hiding behind "but I'm just a comedian" whenever it's convenient.

Fortunately we have patriots out there who point this out to us naive, lazy people on a regular basis. Otherwise I might fall into your "sad extreme" generalization, and of course I wouldn't want that.

If you really question this you need some friends that don't read Ars. If i were to survey every person I know I'd bet maybe 2-3 would know about SOPA/PIPA. In order to know they'd need to first care about politics and policy (maybe 1%) and then about tech (maybe 5%), that doesn't leave much overlap.

Blue Adept wrote:

I sent a twitter message asking the Daily Show to draw attention to the bills.

Jon is a classy guy. He's careful not to bite the hand that feeds him, but he also doesn't let them speak on his behalf. When Viacom made the decision to pull The Daily Show and Colbert Report from Hulu a couple years ago, Jon voiced that it was a decision made by the parent company and that he and his team had no say in the matter. I think he definitely see the value of exposure, and finding new ways to generate revenue while making your content as (reasonably) openly available as possible is going to pave the way for the future in how we consume media.

It's sort of sad to see that apparently he isn't updated on issues unless they're spoon fed to him by his team.

It's not surprising, he's a mediocre comedian who's managed to get a lot of naive and lazy people to look at him as a serious news source (and in some sad extreme cases, their only news source). He has no problem hiding behind "but I'm just a comedian" whenever it's convenient.

Fortunately we have patriots out there who point this out to us naive, lazy people on a regular basis. Otherwise I might fall into your "sad extreme" generalization, and of course I wouldn't want that.

Tell you what, show me where I said that everyone who watches Stewart and Colbert is naive and lazy and I'll apologize

ARGH YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US

I don't think they shouldn't be on TV or that they aren't doing good (odcchaz is very correct in his reply above). I'm talking about the fact that a 30 minute, 5x a week show means that they have to be hyper selective in what is covered and what opinions are presented for any give topic, and you end up with a viewership that includes a demographic as uninformed, insufferable, and convinced of their own rightness and awareness as the worst FNC loyalists. Any questions about that (or his selection of what topics are covered, opinions presented, etc.) are immediately handwaved away because "he's/I'm just a comedian". And finally I just don't find him to be all that funny. For that matter I didn't think he was very funny eons ago when he took over from Craig whoever (who wasn't very funny either) when the show was still on MTV.

You can't say that a phrase has a particular meaning. It doesn't matter what it originally meant, people now take it to mean: That statement seems to beg me to ask this question. The reason people do that is because that's the meaning you get when you put the English words "begs the question" in a phrase. You might be in the right when someone uses "literally" incorrectly, but there is no reason everyone must now learn what that phrase originally meant; it's just a waste of time. We're not talking about some degredation of English or something; people are using the words in that sentence correctly.

It's not surprising, he's a mediocre comedian who's managed to get a lot of naive and lazy people to look at him as a serious news source (and in some sad extreme cases, their only news source). He has no problem hiding behind "but I'm just a comedian" whenever it's convenient.

I don't believe any of those "naive and lazy people" view him as a serious news source.

I find him and Colbert to be a true inverse of the modern television news. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are entertainment masquerading as news; while Colbert/Stewart are news masquerading as entertainment.

Regardless of your view as to his caliber as a comedian, he commands an audience larger than Fox News and almost as large as Rush Limbaugh. Getting him to highlight SOPA on his show is a big win for the anti-SOPA troops, even if he presents a segment that is watered down by his corporate overlords.

I know the classic meaning of it. The classical idiom is inferior to the vernacular meaning the OP used, for at least three reasons:

1) The vernacular is more accurate in its phrasing. Look at the meaning of the component words. Contemporary usage aligns with them far more closely than the old idiom.

2) Not only is it more accurate, its meaning is far more transparent. Most intelligent people who are not familiar with the idiom will assume the vernacular meaning rather than the classical one. The fact that some pedant had to make a website that rails against clear usage in favor of exclusive language illustrates the point.

3) it's more useful. Situations that beg a certain question to be asked occur far more frequently than the narrow didactic case of the archaic usage.

I make a point of using the newer, better meaning and will happily expound on it every time someone tries to correct me on it.

You can't say that a phrase has a particular meaning. It doesn't matter what it originally meant, people now take it to mean: That statement seems to beg me to ask this question. The reason people do that is because that's the meaning you get when you put the English words "begs the question" in a phrase. You might be in the right when someone uses "literally" incorrectly, but there is no reason everyone must now learn what that phrase originally meant; it's just a waste of time. We're not talking about some degredation of English or something; people are using the words in that sentence correctly.

I completely disagree with you. You can take something like "Stupid is as stupid does" (which I think applies here) which never had a real definition and it can come to mean something by how people use it. Certain things can become slang but just because it might become slang doesn't mean your not using the saying wrong.

My mother in-law passed down several of these to my wife, very very annoying. It's stuff like the IT Crowd's "damp squid" and "peddle stool."

Coming out in support of SOPA is sociopolitical suicide for the cognoscenti, so rest assured neither the savvy Stewart nor the canny Colbert will do it anytime soon. Polarization is killing this debate. SOPA isn't just about piracy, and it isn't just about greed. It's really about who controls digital content and why. In that sense, it's a fight between those with control and those who want it. What say we all read the bill...